Presidential Candidates

"Certainly she is the only candidate with massive foreign policy experience and knowledge"Huh?So you're stating that you prefer an experienced candidate who was COMPLETELY supportive for Bush Jr.'s illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq? You WANT a candidate that thinks and acts, EXACTLY like . . . Bush Jr.? And throughout the illegal and immoral Iraqi occupation, you prefer an experienced candidate who continued to EAGERLY fund the deaths of a million innocent Iraqi citizens? You prefer an experienced candidate whose active role in invading Iraq DIRECTLY caused the creation of ISIL? You prefer THAT type of experienced and knowledgeable candidate?And a candidate who was more of a hawk than Robert Gates when invading Libya? DIRECTLY causing the spread of more terrorism in the world? You prefer that type of experienced and knowledgeable candidate?And a person who has no compunction in accepting "contributions" from catastrophic human-right violating nations such as Saudi Arabia and Israel? BTW, how many Saudi Arabia women have been stoned to death or beheaded this week? You prefer this type of "women's-rights" candidate?Well, forget about dark-skinned, non-christians in OTHER countries. All amerikans know they are just "bug-splat." (The term our brave amerikan military use to describe middle eastern deaths, lovely). What about her own kin? You prefer the type of candidate who would sacrifice her own daughter by continuously exposing her to a serial adulterer, just so that her own selfish political goals can be reached?Is that the type of experienced and knowledgeable candidate you would vote for?Curious, while you would reward and vote this type of person into office, I would support her criminal actions be put on trial.I guess we are two very different types of people RAZD, I would throw away my vote to a third party than to ever consider voting for a war criminal.

I know I am off-topic and a little dated (Dec 03, 2015) with this. But following the theme from my previous post . . .I said it before and I'll say it again, what type of sociopathic nation honors war criminals with statues?

quote:

---

On Thursday, Cheney's family unveiled the official bust of the former vice president, . . .

​

Vice President Joe Biden also spoke at the event, putting aside partisan differences and praising Cheney the man.

​

"The way you have conducted yourself is a model for anyone in high public office," Biden said.

---

quote:

---

Cheney left office in 2009 with a 13 percent approval rating. According to Roll Call, the bust will cost approximately $50,000.

---

Uber sigh.Dick Cheney Busted | HuffPost Latest News

Actually, for an art "performance" project, . . . that idea ain't half bad.How are you with fund writing RAZD?Could you ask for three million dollars? One million for you, one million for me, and one million for the pigeons. Then when we get the grant we will all abscond to Rio.You still got your thong swimsuit?

Keeping it in the republican family, . . .Dan Quayle?He would also make an excellent spell checker for the monument's text.

Agreed. She's been actively dealing and supporting war criminals, dictators, and human right violators for many, many years, and knows the best way to give them what they want. As a matter of fact, ISIL sings her praise all of the time. Indeed, terrorists like ISIL simply wouldn't exist without good ol' "people" like Hillary creating middle east conflict and then arming them to the teeth with advanced US weaponry. Yeah, as a life-long war-hawk, no one could possibly expect that out of Hillary. I am sure the miilion dead Iraqis from Hillary's support and funding of the illegal and immoral Iraqi invasion will be impressed by your high standards. *chuckle* Yeah, Faux News ALWAYS talk about the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. I see.So what you are saying is: if you cannot have the SPECIFIC ORDER of arrests that YOU mandate, you would prefer ALL mass-murderers to stay free. In addition, until that time when YOUR specific war criminals that you choose are tried, you would prefer we reward some mass murderers with positions in high offices.Kudos RAZD, kudos.

Although a better representation, I still think it not accurate enough.(Armchair psychologist alert . . .)For one thing, . . . erect? Oh c'mon. If anything, Cheney sublimated his inability to get it up with his desire to go to war and murder millions. So a flaccid penis would be better symbolically represented.Second thing, Cheney's received FIVE draft deferments during the Vietnam Era. If any sex organ should represent Cheney, it should be this one . . . (From "Everybody Loves Raymond," episode "Maria's Scultpure."

I suspect your reply and accusation is a disingenuous attempt to quickly get out of arguing an unpleasant personal stance: the support of a mass murderer.If not, then I seem to have made two regrettable errors.One: I must have only dreamed that an administrator on this forum chided the participants to "argue the position, not the person." But by judging how many "likes" that your post received, it appears you all believe the admin's admonishments were ONLY for me.Two: I thought this was a debate forum. You know, a place where somebody presents an opinion, supports it with FACTS, and then others examine the information, counter with their FACTS, back and forth, until finally, the truth is exposed. Yet all I received from you was akin to, "your facts, which I haven't bothered to research or even identify, are stinky, nah, nah, nah."Not exactly 'post-of-the-month' material Omnivorous.

*Chuckle*Sayth the man who just accused me of believing the Bengazi "controversy" as evidence of my Kool-Aid imbibery.You slay me RAZD. You mean . . . again?Okay. To limit YOUR off-topic straw-man accusations, please first answer Question One: Was the american invasion of Iraq a war crime?

From this . . . To this . . . ___________________________________________Hey Omni,Seriously, thanks for the reply. I do think there is some honest constructive criticism in your recent post. I appreciate your effort.However, you (and others) seem to be acting like a creationist when she is told the flood never happened. And the more evidence that is presented that the flood didn't happen, the more apoplectic she became.Or more to our current situation, how badly republicans acted when I told them how horrific Bush Jr. was going to be as a president. Then even more apoplectic they became after I gave them such evidence as Bush Jr.'s small IQ, cowardly military service, drug- and alcohol-filled past, and previous criminal behavior.You know what? The sources and facts I used about Bush Jr. were 100% correct. He was a horrific president.And now I am using similar sources and facts about Hillary. This time, it appears to be democratic voters who are apoplectic . . .—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Huh?All I did was hint that you should at least IDENTIFY which pieces of evidence of MINE you had a problem with. You have been on a debate forum before, right?Perhaps you just mis-read my post?__________________________________________________________I see above RAZD seems like he wants to debate my position. He is doing this by asking for more evidence, reviewing it, and probably making a counterpoint or two along the way. I know, I know, it's a CRAZY thing to do on a DEBATE FORUM, . . . that RAZD, he's a kook! But I am going to give it a chance. It . . . just . . . may . . . work.Edited by dronestar, : know>now

Hi Jar,Thanks for the reply. I don't want to duplicate replies so I'll wait for RAZD to respond before I do.cheerio

_____________________________________________________________________________ YOU introduced a completely unrelated strawman, Bengazi, to this thread, not me. Check the posts, it may surprise you to know your words are recorded. Yeah, I "dodged" your counter-attack by asking you a pertinent on-topic question. Oh my, a slippery eel am I. Yes, the Iraqi invasion was/is certainly a war crime. But NO, certainly no intelligent or moral senator was deluded (although 90% of americans were). And NO, the UN never gave the invasion an approval (what orifice did you pull that from?). Agreed. The torture of prisoners is among many crimes committed during the Iraqi invasion. I'll come back to this later in my reply below.________________________________________________________________________________________It seems everybody in this thread has conveniently forgotten history. It appears most convenient when solely criticizing me and not the actual war mongers and the voters who support them. So I will recap much of my evidence with a stroll down memory lane . . .________________________________________________________________________________________ Unlike your un-evidenced propaganda that Hillary was deluded by Bush Jr.'s lies?(It burns.)__________________________________________________________________________ Yes.And Bush Jr. was not solely responsible for the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq AND its results. A minority of Democrats, INCLUDING Hillary, . . .

quote:

---

H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
Yea D Clinton, Hillary

---

. . . are DIRECTLY responsible for the following: 4,500 Americans killed (far larger number permanently wounded)
up to a million innocent Iraqi civilians murdered
trillionS of dollars of US taxpayers' money wasted
anti-American extremism in reaction to the invasion and occupation which has spread and DIRECTLY produced the group ISIL.

quote:

---

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair says he’s sorry for mistakes made in the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and says he recognizes elements of truth behind opinion that the invasion caused the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
http://sayyidali.com/...war-admits-conflict-caused-isil.html

---

__________________________________________________ 1. You have just stated that Hillary was EASILY fooled by an immoral, mentally retarded simpleton: Bush Jr.. ANYBODY who can EASILY be fooled by an AWOL coward, cocaine abusing, alcoholic, mentally retarded thinker and talker ("You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test") should NEVER run for office.What type of person would support or vote for such a mentally slow "person"?__________________________________________________ 2. COMPLETELY FALSE. She actually made her decision based partly on patriotic peer-pressure, to not appear soft on terrorism. Additionally, Hillary thought that demonstrating a tough-on-terrorism veneer would help her future political ambitions (at least to voters who are extremely gullible). But mostly because she IS a war-monger: Cruel and unthinking support for Israel (she defended the Israeli assault of an unarmed peace flotilla from Turkey), boycott and invasion of Iraq, supported coups in Honduras and Ukraine, invasion of Afghanistan.As Secretary of State, she supported defeating Qaddafi. She publicly expressed delight when Qaddafi was killed, and now Libya is worse off after Qaddafi’s removal.

quote:

---

Secretary Clinton was all smiles on the day of Qaddafi’s death, even paraphrasing Julius Caesar: We came, we saw, he died.
Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Vote Still Matters | The National Interest

---

She was also more hawkish than anyone, even Robert Gates, in the Obama administration when it concerned intervention in Syria.

quote:

---

Clinton was a staunch supporter of the war in Afghanistan, yet another in a long list of Clinton-supported wars based on lies, half-truths, and deceit.http://www.activistpost.com/2015/11/hillary-clintons-war-record-100-for-genocide.html

---

The Iraqi invasion was not a rare anomaly for Hillary. She is a war monger. What type of person would support or vote for such a filthy war monger?__________________________________________________ 3. WMD lies were only believed and supported by people who needed a convenient lie to further themSELVES.During the run up to the invasion, Hillary had many months to investigate and debate Bush Jr.'s claims that Iraq's WMD was a threat, as well as the likely results of a US invasion.But let's first go back further in time. Project for the New American Century was established in 1997. Ten members went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.

quote:

---

Believing that UN sanctions against Iraq would be an ineffective means of disarming Iraq, PNAC members also wrote a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott,[26] urging Congress to act, and supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655)[27][28] which President Clinton signed into law in October 1998.
Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia

---

Their pressure to attack Iraq BEFORE 9/11 was NEVER kept secret. Intelligent and informed people instantly saw through the WMD lies and saw PNAC's true intent of controlling middle east oil. Intelligent and informed people were highly active, vocal, and visible. It was not possible for Hillary to not have heard about this through the media, mass protests, and their contacting her office.

quote:

---

Members of Congress were also alerted by large numbers of scholars of the Middle East, Middle Eastern political leaders, former State Department and intelligence officials and others who recognized that a US invasion would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, and related problems. Few people I know who are familiar with Iraq were at all surprised that the US invasion has become such a tragedy. Indeed, most of us were in communication with Congressional offices and often with individual members of Congress themselves in the months leading up to the vote warning of the likely consequences of an invasion and occupation. Therefore, subsequent claims by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and other leading Democratic supporters of the war that they were unaware of the likely consequences of the invasion are completely false.http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15100-democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war

---

Indeed, I, a new yorker myself, signed many petitions of protest of the invasion that were sent to her office. She can hardly cry ignorance to views other than Bush Jr.
__________________________________________________ 4. The Iraqi invasion was against international law and treaties. You are trying to tell me Hillary was ignorant that the invasion of another nation was an act of aggression and a SUPREME crime above ALL other crimes? The person you would happily support and vote for doesn't know of things called 'laws?' . . .

quote:

---

Those who voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq did so despite the fact that it violated international legal conventions which the US government is legally bound to uphold. The resolution constituted a clear violation of the United Nations Charter that, like other ratified international treaties, should be treated as supreme law, according to Article VI of the US Constitution. According to articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.

​

This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing violations of UN Security Council resolutions demanding its withdrawal from Kuwait, but the Security Council did not do so for any subsequent lesser Iraqi violations. The only other exception for the use of force authorized by the charter is in self-defense against armed attack, which even the Bush administration admitted had not taken place.http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15100-democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war

---

In addition . . .

quote:

---

Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General, expressed the belief that the war in Iraq was an "illegal act that contravened the U.N. charter."
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikipedia

---

The Iraqi invasion was/is illegal.__________________________________________________ 5.

quote:

---

'We Will, In fact, Be Greeted As Liberators' - Cheney

---

You believe that Hillary believed THIS??? After DECADES of amerikan support for dictators and human right violators, and impeding democracy in the middle east, Hillary BELIEVED that the amerikan forces would be greeted as liberators?Can anybody be that mentally retarded?

quote:

---

Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote: 'How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath?' April 21, 2004

---

Unbelievable hypocrisy. "How could THEY be so poorly prepared for the aftermath?"

quote:

---

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

​

"How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

​

"I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen."

​

CNN.com - Hillary Clinton: No regreton Iraq vote - Apr 21, 2004

---

Seriously, Hillary's hypocritical accusations burn like the China Syndrone.__________________________________________________ 6. Accusations about Iraq seeking nuclear weapons capability were KNOWN to be false . . .

quote:

---

The Senate resolution also falsely claimed that Iraq was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability." In reality, Iraq had long eliminated its nuclear program, a fact that was confirmed in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1998, four years PRIOR to the resolution.

​

The resolution also falsely claimed that Iraq at that time continued "to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability." In reality, as the US government now admits, Iraq had rid itself of its chemical and biological weapons nearly a decade earlier and no longer had any active chemical and biological weapons programs. This likelihood that Iraq no longer had operational chemical or biological weapons was brought to the attention of members of Congress by a number of top arms control specialists, as well as Scott Ritter, the American who headed UNSCOM's efforts to locate Iraq's possible hidden caches of chemical and biological weapons, hidden supplies or secret production facilities.

​

The classified full version of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, while grossly overestimating Iraq's military capability, was filled with extensive disagreements, doubts and caveats regarding President Bush's assertions regarding Iraq's WMDs, WMD programs, and delivery systems.

---

Astonishly, Hillary was one of many senators who didn't bother to even read the estimate. Can you imagine a more vile "person," someone who willfully goes to war based on ignorance.

quote:

---

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has once again raised the issue of whether members of Congress read a key intelligence report before the 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq.

​

Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, according to "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton."

​

For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the document.
Records: Senators who OK'd war didn't readkey report - CNN.com

---

__________________________________________________ 7. Hillary certainly knew of Han Blix's inspections and his pleading for more time to finalize their findings. Thus the reason Bush Jr. (NOT Saddam Hussein) quickly withdrew the inspectors, so that the findings could not be concluded, and the invasion could proceed. Hillary went along with Bush Jr.

quote:

---

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq

​

The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections,

​

America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."

​

http://www.berkeley.edu/...ia/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml

---

__________________________________________________ 8. Hillary falsely INSISTED that Iraq's possession of such weapons was "not in doubt" and was "undisputed."

quote:

---

Clinton helped kill the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002, also known as the Levin amendment, introduced by Senator Carl Levin during Senate deliberations over whether or not to approve the White House’s own war resolution. The amendment would have required UN Security Council approval, with a few caveats, before hostilities against Iraq could be commenced. Clinton, that consistent believer in coercive diplomacy, international law, and the legitimacy that multilateral institutions provide, as Sahay strives to remind us, nevertheless voted against the Levin amendment and with President Bush.
Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Hawk | The National Interest

---

__________________________________________________ 9. She CONTINUED to support the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq after her original vote:

quote:

---

{Sanders} has voted along with Clinton for some $300 billion in war funding since entering the Senate in 2005.
Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding - The Boston Globe

---

quote:

---

October and November 2003: The Senate votes to authorize $87 billion in supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
What Hillary won't say about Iraq | Salon.com

---

quote:

---

The second piece of legislation was S 574, and it came up for a vote on February 17 and had two main points of emphasis : the Senate continued to support the troops already on the ground in Iraq; and the Senate disapproved of the President\'s surge strategy. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the legislation

---

SLOT GACOR HARI INI GAMPANG MENANG 2022

quote:

---

Interestingly enough, Clinton opposed the Bush surge in Iraq in 2007, voting against the plan during her tenure in the Senate.[10] This vote marks virtually the only Clinton vote that was opposed to greater use of the US military. However, it was later revealed that her opposition vote was nothing more than political grandstanding due to the fact that the Democratic Primaries were right around the corner. In fact, this much was revealed by former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates who wrote that he witnessed Clinton tell Barack Obama that she had opposed George W. Bush‘s last-ditch effort to salvage the Iraq war, the 2007 troop surge, because the politics of the 2008 Democratic primaries demanded it.[11]

​

This cynical political maneuvering reveals two things: 1.) That Clinton truly supported increasing the number of US forces in Iraq and 2.) Clinton was willing to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women, the financial future of the country, and the countless lives of innocent people on the line for even a minor political strategic position.
Hillary Clinton's War Record - 100% For Genocide - Activist Post

---

Read that again: "Clinton was willing to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women, the financial future of the country, and the countless lives of innocent people on the line for even a minor political strategic position."
_______________________________________________________________________________________ There were many, many, many war crimes committed.

quote:

---

Human Rights Watch claimed in 2005 that the principle of "command responsibility" could make high-ranking officials within the Bush administration guilty of the numerous war crimes committed during the War on Terror, either with their knowledge or by persons under their control.[59]United States war crimes - Wikipedia

---

quote:

---

Shortly before the end of President Bush's second term, newsmedia in countries other than the U.S. began publishing the views of those who believe that under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the U.S. is obligated to hold those responsible for prisoner abuse to account under criminal law.[73] One proponent of this view was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Professor Manfred Nowak) who, on January 20, 2009, remarked on German television that former president George W. Bush had lost his head of state immunity and under international law the U.S. would now be mandated to start criminal proceedings against all those involved in these violations of the UN Convention Against Torture.[74] Law professor Dietmar Herz explained Nowak's comments by opining that under U.S. and international law former President Bush is criminally responsible for adopting torture as an interrogation tool.[74]United States war crimes - Wikipedia

---

The use of Cluster bombs, phosphorus weapons on civilians, unproportional use of military power against a civilian presence and the collective punishment of civilians, especially in Fulujah. Use of depleted uranium weapons that continues to cause birth defects: But ALL of those crimes are contained within the SUPREME crime of aggression: the invasion of Iraq.

quote:

---

In the wording of the Nuremberg Tribunal, aggression is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole all the evil in the tortured land of Iraq that flowed from the US-UK invasion, for example.https://chomsky.info/20060509/

---

What this means is EVERYthing that was precipitated by Hillary's and other's vote to illegally and immorally invade Iraq makes them DIRECTLY to blame. Bush Jr. was not solely responsible for the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq AND its results. A minority of Democrats, INCLUDING Hillary are DIRECTLY responsible.

quote:

---

In the wording of the Nuremberg Tribunal, aggression is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole all the evil in the tortured land of Iraq that flowed from the US-UK invasion, for example.

​

The concept of aggression was defined clearly enough by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was chief prosecutor for the United States at Nuremberg. The concept was restated in an authoritative General Assembly resolution. An aggressor, Jackson proposed to the tribunal, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.

​

That applies to the invasion of Iraq. Also relevant are Justice Jackson’s eloquent words at Nuremberg: If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us. And elsewhere: We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.https://chomsky.info/20060509/

---

____________________________________________________________________________________ Ugh. This is just an ignorant thing to write. As I wrote, If a Saudi man wants to divorce a wife or cover up his crime, he need only accuse, there is no fair trial:

quote:

---

Saudi law allows the death penalty for many crimes. For example:
Adultery, lesbianism, Fornication
Capital punishment in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia

---

Of the million innocent civilians who were murdered during america's illegal and immoral Iraqi invasion, what percentage was female? RAZD, how do you write, with a straight face, Hillary's positions are pro-women's rights? ____________________________________________________________________________________ During the last Democratic debate (1/17/16), while Sanders pushed for an expanded Medicare project to insure ALL americans at a significant savings, Hillary preferred defeatism, stating that the current Obamacare was as good as it will ever get. Perhaps she might tweak Obamacare some. Currently Obamacare has 30-40 million uninsured americans. Also, drug companies can raise prices to extortion levels. Insurance companies throw away 30% of health care dollars through overhead.

quote:

---

CEO: 5,000-percent drug price hike "not excessive at all"
Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli defends 5,000 percent price hike on Daraprim - CBS News

---

An american voter would be happy with Hillary's health-care support of this status quo?___________________________________________________________________________________RAZD, your views . . . Contrasts with . . .

quote:

---

Brian Schweitzer, the former Democratic governor of Montana and a potential rival to Clinton in 2016, took a not-so-subtle jab at the former Secretary of State and senator from New York. Schweitzer seemed to suggest that, without citing names, anyone who voted for the Iraq War was still, more than eleven years out from that controversial vote, disqualified from holding the office of the president.
Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Vote Still Matters | The National Interest

---

quote:

---

I don’t think anybody should be president of the United States that made that mistake [voting for the Iraq Invasion], he told The Washington Post. - Lincoln Chafee

---

Indeed.With all the evidence I have shown, what type of "person" would go ahead and HAPPILY support/vote for Hillary?Edited by dronestar, : re-upped the Saudi beheading photo.

Thanks for your support anglagard, I appreciate it. I believe RAZD understands my supportive evidence, as certainly does Mod.Even Faith's posts Message 164 and Message 166 earned cheers from me, for her surprisingly lucid posts. Wow.It's funny how the world's worst problems (today's ISIL or the world-wide immigration problems) stem from injustices caused by the US (decades of support for dictators/terrorists, support for human right's violating nations, toppling of democratic nations, invasions based on lies, largest seller of weapons of small destruction in the world). Yet the american voters cannot/will not acknowledge the primary source of these atrocities: the US government. Although, EVERY election cycle they do have choices (this year: Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, even Bernie Sanders, though Hawkish, is miles more ethical than Hillary), they go on to make extreme excuses why they MUST vote in the same criminals that caused these problems, over and over again.Edited by dronestar, : better subtitle